Evidence of meeting #13 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, I was right there. Can I have a moment?
If there's a genuine interest in having a discussion here, it might behove the chair and others to give me the opportunity to speak.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You were on, sir. I didn't see you. I don't know where you were.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I will ask the permission of the committee to allow me to speak. We can continue to filibuster, or we can....
Do you want to allow me to speak, or do you not want to let me speak?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you.
First of all, I have an observation. Nobody has moved an amendment. Nobody has put any other suggestions on the table by way of amendment. The only thing we've seen is a very protracted filibuster, one that I wasn't going to participate in yesterday, to be frank.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “democracy”. You talk about conferring upon the august authorities that somehow I have the opportunity to move this committee on my own. All they have to have the ability to do is to move a motion. As with any other democratic process, there is a majority vote, and that vote then decides what will happen. Now, that may not be your definition of majority, but it's the definition that most people use of democracy, that a majority vote is what ends up carrying the day.
I moved a motion. I said then that if given the opportunity—and I certainly say it now—I am open to discussing that. But don't expect my ideas to be the same as yours. And I do have certain concerns. One of the concerns I have is the notion that we bring one-off individuals. There is a chief of police from a major city who disagrees with every other chief of police from every other major city. The chiefs of police as an association and more than 90% of their membership have one position. Every single police association in the country, with the exception of Saskatchewan as the sole exception, is in favour of the registry. The one association that disagrees has an undecided opinion. It has not taken a position. One of its members has said one thing, others are saying another, and they haven't taken a formal position. So you have virtually every single police association in the country, if not every one; you have virtually every chief of police....
The point that I would make, simply put, is that if you're going to have police appear before the committee, it would make sense to have those who are representing an association or those who are representing a provincial or territorial association come and speak.
Now, there are 32 million individuals in Canada, all of whom I'm sure would like to be able to speak. But with all due respect, if I want to know the opinion of people in the parliamentary secretary's riding, we don't invite 100,000 people to the House of Commons to hear the opinion of people in his riding. We happen to ask the parliamentary secretary. We have a system of representative democracy, and in this system of representative democracy, groups represent other groups, and those are the ones we listen to.
So I have a fundamental problem with the notion of cherry-picking the person who has one particular point of view, and then holding it out somehow that there's some great dissent among the broader community. I think that's disingenuous in the extreme. It's a little like us having a debate on whether or not the Earth is flat and saying that we should have an equal number of people who believe that the Earth is round and an equal number of people who believe the Earth is flat.
Committee members are entitled to other opinions. I don't deny them that opportunity. But I would suggest that a great way of resolving this, if committee members have some great objection to the motion I presented, is that they have in their democratic capacities the ability to do something that none of them so far has done, and that is, move a motion to amend it.
There are two ways to deal with this, and it can be done expeditiously. We can have a vote on the motion, and it can be defeated and a new motion can be introduced. We can have amendments made to this motion until it's satisfactory to proceed with the vote. Alternative to all of those, we could have a filibuster with great throes of rhetoric and all kinds of ridiculous over-the-top, syrupy wording, which, by the way, isn't being reported or talked about anywhere except when Conservative members of Parliament rise in the House of Commons.
So I would suggest that rather than continuing this charade, we simply move whatever amendments committee members would like to see. That's the way this committee has always worked. That's the way, frankly, it should always work. I invite members, please, if they have ideas, if they have things they want to change, move them. If they don't like the motion, defeat it and present a new one. I'm willing to work with the committee, but instead of giving long rhetorical speeches, let's actually present some credible ideas.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be as clear and as explicit as possible. Mr. Holland's motion is no good, and I will tell you why. I met with representatives of the Fédération des femmes du Québec. They cannot come on May 6. I met and spoke to Mr. Dupuis, and he cannot be here on May 12. So, right off the bat, some witnesses are unable to appear. I could go on and keep giving examples of people who will not be here, because this motion is too restrictive. It says that the representatives from the Fédération des femmes du Québec will appear on May 6, for example. But they will not be here. The motion also says that Jacques Dupuis will be here on May 12, but that does not work for him; he is available on May 13.
I am sorry, but this motion is too restrictive. I cannot support it, and we will not support it. I want to make that very clear.
However, I am proposing a solution that would give everyone a chance to speak and give their opinion. I think it is a fair motion that could solve this problem. My fear is that there will be no witnesses. The Liberal Party will hold things up because there was much talk about the Conservative government doing it, but anyone can. The solution—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Order.
Please, Mr. Holland. Everything comes through the chair. Don't harass Ms. Mourani.
Continue, Ms. Mourani.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
We are not afraid of the debate. The government wants to bring us witnesses who represent its vision. We want to invite witnesses who represent our vision, as well. We are not afraid of the debate. You can bring me your witnesses any time, and I will be ready to talk to them and debate the issue.
I think this is a fundamental bill for Canada and for Quebec. I think the filibustering needs to stop. It makes no darn sense. We need to find a solution that works. I have a solution to propose to all my colleagues at the table. Every member who has the right to vote, excluding Mr. Chair, could select 3 witnesses, which would be a fair representation of the minority government, 15 witnesses for the Conservative government and 18 witnesses for the opposition. That would solve the problem, and we could finally start to hear what people think. Enough filibustering, let's move on!
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you, Ms. Mourani. Such common sense here.
Was there a motion there? Sorry, Ms. Mourani, was that an amendment?
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
My motion is here, and I will hand it out. Mr. Holland has to withdraw his first, before I can move my motion.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
No, she has a motion, but the motion cannot be placed on the table at the same time as we have another motion.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chair, I cannot propose an amendment because the parameters of the current motion are too restrictive.
I know that Mr. Holland is very conscientious, and I am sure that he would agree to withdraw his motion so we can move forward and deal with this issue. I am certain that he is acting in good faith. I take for granted that Mr. Holland, Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Comartin are acting in good faith. So I move that Mr. Holland withdraw his motion because unfortunately I cannot amend it. I will then put forward my motion, which is in both languages.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you. A suggestion has been made that Mr. Holland withdraw his motion. If he doesn't withdraw his motion, we can take a vote on it.
Do you want to withdraw your motion, Mr. Holland?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
We can either vote on it or amend it. I'm not withdrawing it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You're not withdrawing it.
Is there any more discussion on this before we vote?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm going to continue to support Mr. Holland's motion for the same reasons I gave last week. I just want to add that the real problem we've got here is we simply do not have enough time to deal with an issue that has been a serious policy issue in this country going on better than twenty years. To handle a change in that policy by a private member's bill is about as undemocratic as any process I could think of that would be instituted.
We get two hours of debate at the start of the private member's bill at second reading. We get two hours at the end. What is obvious to anybody sitting at this table is that we've got this inability to adequately respond to those people in the country who have a valid right to come here and testify. We've got probably close to 200 names of individuals and groups who want to testify. They've told both sides of the table that, all parties.
I'm not suggesting we call all of them. But to reduce that, as Ms. Mourani is suggesting at this point, to--where are we at?--30 or 32 witnesses is not democratic. It's a bad process. It's an unfair process to the witnesses, and quite frankly, it's an unfair process to the country as a whole because of the significance of this issue. No matter which side of the coin you're on, it is a major policy issue. It should not be dealt with in this way. It is just grossly undemocratic.
That's all I have to say.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
Before I call a vote, are there any other comments?
April 28th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
No. The suggestion was made that I call the vote.
Do you want to speak?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Yes, briefly. And I was on the list prior to all the various interjections.
